The Micro-Dynamics of Fascism
A small case study of anti-trans propaganda
Last week I published an op-ed in The Davis Enterprise that described the unethical, dishonest, and manipulative tactics that a very persistent local anti-trans activist uses to scapegoat innocent people in right-wing social media.
As I wrote previously, the activist tried to ambush interview three women who were volunteering to register runners at a gay-pride fun run in Davis. As the activist rapidly approached the women with her cellphone camera filming, she asked provocative questions about their views on medically transitioning minors. Rather than responding to the unexpected and out-of-context provocation, the women turned their backs, reasonably declining consent to be interviewed.
In frustration, the activist jumped to the conclusion that their refusal to engage meant they must be bad mothers who are guilty of promoting the sterilization of children:
Come on you guys (sic)…do you really want to see more kids sterilized in Davis? Is that your goal? IS THAT YOUR GOAL?…What is wrong with you as mothers?! It’s a medical scandal and you guys are promoting it!
This video has been widely shared and seen on X (formerly Twitter). It’s important to note that viewers online know very little about these volunteers - only that they were volunteering at a Pride event and did not consent to being ambushed on camera. For these perceived “sins,” commenters on X call the women predators, pedophiles, and soulless demonic monsters who should be jailed, killed, and burned in Hell.
Many of the over 1,200 comments on X reveal an irrational level of not just anger, but intense rage against these women:
Personally, I hope those women all die of some imminent and painful condition. I’m sorry, but who or what needs them, as they stand there supporting the mutilation and destruction of their neighbor’s children.
Another commenter posted a still-frame image of the women and called for violence against them - “Get the guillotine, enough of this shit.” The activist who filmed and posted the video actually endorsed this violent sentiment, “Seriously, I’m with you.”
I refuse to believe that these grotesquely violent comments are in response to the actual conduct of the women in the video. Rather, I understand the violence in these posts to be a response to the manipulative packaging of the video as propaganda that resonates in the larger MAGA political environment.
As I’ve noted before, the MAGA worldview does not recognize the legitimacy of political opponents in a pluralistic democracy. Instead, MAGA frames all political rivals as evil forces who pose an existential threat to the nation.
This episode is an illustration of the toxic “us vs. them” politics of the MAGA era. This internet dust-up transcends the typical online toxicity we’ve become all too familiar with. These are not anonymous responses to a distant political abstraction, or online trolls triggered by a provocative meme.
These commenters are identifiable people. They think they are contributing meaningfully to an online discussion. They are wishing violence upon real women who could be their neighbors. They uncritically accept the framing of the situation by an activist they trust. Absent evidence, they are convinced emotionally that these women are responsible for an evil that threatens the nation’s children.
While this episode is but one example of many we could find on the internet, I think it helps to illustrate the way fascist-style politics have trickled down to our everyday lives: A MAGA activist takes a neutral piece of information (three women volunteer to help register runners at a Pride fun run), exaggerates and distorts the meaning of that information (they want to sterilize the children of Davis), frames that information in a way that leads viewers to the preordained conclusion that the women are evil, and whips up and rationalizes violent anger against these women who merely wanted to help register runners at a Pride event.
This disturbing dynamic of what I’m calling “micro fascism” is evident also in the responses I’ve received to my op-ed referenced above. In the op-ed, I make no arguments at all about the authenticity of transgender identities, about transgender rights, or about the wisdom of socially or medically affirming transgender identities. The op-ed was a critical political analysis of the dishonest and manipulative tactics of a local anti-trans activist. I conclude the op-ed with this:
In a healthy, functioning democracy, it’s understandable for some people to have questions about the best medical practices for transgender minors or the best ways to accommodate transgender athletes in competitive sports. We can engage in civil political debates using evidence and logic to arrive at just and effective policies. But radical anti-trans activists are not good-faith political actors. They are extremists who produce and profit from online content that distorts reality in order to demonize and dehumanize our friends and neighbors.
In an attempt to shame me, the activist I wrote about posted the op-ed on her Facebook and X accounts, tagged my employer, and re-framed my op-ed as an attack on her for simply “believing in biological reality.” I was not surprised that she misrepresented the point of the op-ed. And it was predictable that I received many angry but off-topic responses.
Notably, nobody has taken issue with the substance of my argument about the activist’s dishonest and manipulative tactics. Instead, as with the angry responses toward the Pride volunteers, the responses I received seem to be directed at the fictional butcher of children they imagine me to be:
“You must be proud to be on the side of those sexually mutilating children.”
“It is clear you have an agenda to destroy young people’s lives and gaslight as many people as possible with your lies…”
“I guess you are one of those Biden paid psycho nazi libz that will mutilate your own children and grandchildren.”
“Almost comical if it wasn’t so sickening”
One person went out of their way to find my personal page on Facebook to express their displeasure with my op-ed. To their credit, they didn’t just hit and run but stuck around long enough to attempt a dialogue. It became painfully obvious, however, that we were talking past each other. I wanted them to engage with the substance of the argument in my op-ed. They attempted to shift the ground of the debate to one that framed me more clearly as the monster they assumed me to be:
J. Doe: Mind blowing that an educated person such as yourself could in good faith support the absurdity of children having sex operations and gender affirming care. You are one sick puppy.
Me: If you can find any passage in my op-ed about sex operations on children please point it out specifically.
J. Doe: Are you OK with a child having a double mastectomy. Why don’t you clarify?
Me: You are on my page, responding to a link with an op-ed I wrote. The op-ed has nothing to do with double mastectomies. I was interested in hearing more about your thoughts about my op-ed and why you think that makes me a “sick puppy.”
J. Doe: So you can’t answer the question?
Me: Why would I answer a question about mastectomies from a stranger who came to MY page to respond to MY op-ed that has NOTHING to do with mastectomies? However, the fact that you even think that’s a relevant question helps to confirm an argument I make in the op-ed.
Me: In other words, since the op-ed doesn’t make an argument about gender affirming care, we can debate the merits of the op-ed regardless of our respective views on juvenile mastectomies. If, however, you are trying to shift the terms of the conversation away from the content of the op-ed and toward some other topic as a distraction, then you are not really interested in an honest interaction. Instead, you are trying to manipulate the terms of the debate to frame me as the “sick puppy” you imagine me to be. It’s exactly what [the activist I critique] does and it’s that dynamic that I’d be happy to talk to you about - because that is what my op-ed is about - not mastectomies.
J. Doe: That’s what I thought
Me: Sorry to disappoint. I believe in rational analysis of evidence over propaganda or political theater. Therefore, I’m still curious why you think I’m a “sick puppy” based on the op-ed I wrote. It’s a curious conclusion to come to without more information. I guess that’s why you asked me the weird and incongruous question about mastectomies - you wanted confirmation that I really was a “sick puppy.” That’s easier than digging in to the substance of the op-ed to make a real critique. Best of luck to you.
J. Doe: You don’t fool anyone.
This exchange epitomizes the sort of paralyzed political dialogue we tend to see in the toxic political atmosphere of the Trump era. I left the conversation convinced they were unable to engage rationally with my argument while they left the conversation convinced that I was a “sick puppy.”
This sort of dynamic is at work in just about every political conversation these days, not just the transgender issue. As the leader of the MAGA movement, Trump encourages the demonization of political opponents on a near daily basis - against transgender people, against immigrants, against Muslims, against Democrats, against the “cultural elite,” etc. It’s an anti-democratic political strategy that has its roots in authoritarianism, as I explain here.
MAGA fascism creates the social conditions to deny not just the political legitimacy of their opponents, but the very humanity of their opponents. This political dynamic is modeled by figures such as Trump, and it trickles down to our everyday lives - to the point that those who probably consider themselves to be good, decent, and moral people feel comfortably justified wishing violent harm upon strangers who simply volunteered at a Pride event.